Well, people told me that when I scould see a OLED TV I would quite to make crits and stop complain about view angle of thin screen TVs.

But AMOLED and Super AMOLED are told to be superior to OLED, as it have own touch screen layer sensor.

There is a friend's cell phone here, that I imagine it was a IPS (or PLS) LCD, but searching the specification of the model on web I found it was Super AMOLED screen.

Wel, this Super-AMOLED still have the problem of view angle, the image gets darker in put on a 40 degree. It also turns even greener. In other words, just another garbage screen once again.This without talk about it be less bright in day light than LCD, less sharp, and prone to color saturation fadding with the time, reducing durability.

Bloody hell... Isn't there any technology for thin screen in this world able to display a decent image without troubles in lower angles ????????

Should I launch a wordwide challenge to TV manufactures? I challlenge any TV manufacturer to show me a TV that do not anoys me!!!

My television set shows coloured pictures in Cinemascope and the sound comes out in stereo. What does OLED and/or AMOLED do to it? Are they things I should have? What will I see (or hear) that I don't now?

Regards fromDonald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."

Strange, the smartphone that is suposed to be Super-AMOLED get darker and greener in 45 degree angle. But a youtube comparison of a OLED TV vs a IPS TV shows thte OLED have no distortion in lower angles. But AMOLED is suposed to be superior to OLED...Maybe the smartphone it's lying... I don't know...

Donald, the difference should be to not anoys me. For you I don't know.

I tried to watch this LED-4K TV here, but I just can't, I feel horrible looking to it. I made a flat bright image on Photoshop and put on a pen drive to display on the TV screen, and the image it's not homogeneous even from 2 or 3 meters or away.

If OLED TVs have a lot of defect too, I will write letter to all manufactures calling them liers.

We have a 4K-capable 65-inch LG OLED set and it looks spectacular, as adjusted with a set of color bars and a grey scale. The black levels and contrast range are better than even our beloved Panasonic Viera plasma set which gave up the ghost.

The viewing angles are great, no drop-off, and using an Oppo 203 player, the offerings from the BFI, Criterion and Eureka look truly organic (film-like); I say this as an old film fiend/ex-projectionist/life-long photographer/professional videographer.

We'll see what QLED, AMOLED and the like will bring, but for anyone who thinks "all the modern digital junk looks the same", OLED is great for dedicated film viewing, by a good margin (short of me setting up the 16mm Xenon.)

Maybe the cell phone it's not AMOLED, despite the especification on web for that model ay it is.

OLED are reported as great, but people said it it's not so bright (not talking about dynamics range) as LED, becaming a fator in room with strong lights or in places with natural light.The price it's abouth double, and the lifespan it's about 50%. So it's like costs for 4 LCD TVs.

Even than I found a good TV I can't watch TV in my country, cause the digital broadcast use high vídeo compression and so generates artefacts even in the open broadcast, despite be not so horrible like sat signet digital HD TV. I talked with a TV station tecnician 2 days ago, and he told it will keeap the same for years, with no prediction to get better.It's so poor enough to make textures and skin line and skin freckle vanish in even very low motion. The tecnician did not liked when I said that but he could not deny this fact.

I can't watch something soposed to be HD, but that in every motion it became SD or worse. It anoys me a lot. In a 50 inch screen we see the crap that HD in country is.While the HD open broadcast it's bad, the most famous signed TV by sat here it's just repulsive, and have large blocks shaking everywhere, and fuzzy details even when actors and objects are not moving. In motion some channels shaow images that for me was worse thasn VHS.

And I still have concerns about Blu Ray, even from Criterion. Blu Ray can't really deal with grain and most grain reduction technics generater artefacts of grain reduction, tinny blocks. Look this film (restored from camera negative) and the Blue Lagoon restored in 4K:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-ray_ ... lu-ray.htm (see the capture of the woman in profile angle) The shadaws are flat and life less (maybe intention of photography diretor. But we see some blocks in the flat dar gray (shadows) áreas that are digital look. Look the dark suit near the tie of the gray hair guy in one of the last captures.

Blu ray encoding have poor tonalities, poor gradientes in general, specially in flat dark areas. A degradê, like sky and near night sky, usually looks poor and so we can count the tonalities.

Now there are 4K playes. I think they will create 6K and 8k player, and we will still have poor tonalities, poor gradients and digital blocks shaking on screen.They should stop a second the "race for resolution" and focus in richness of tonalities and a image free of artefacts.

Claus Harding wrote:We have a 4K-capable 65-inch LG OLED set and it looks spectacular, as adjusted with a set of color bars and a grey scale. The black levels and contrast range are better than even our beloved Panasonic Viera plasma set which gave up the ghost.

The viewing angles are great, no drop-off, and using an Oppo 203 player, the offerings from the BFI, Criterion and Eureka look truly organic (film-like); I say this as an old film fiend/ex-projectionist/life-long photographer/professional videographer.

We'll see what QLED, AMOLED and the like will bring, but for anyone who thinks "all the modern digital junk looks the same", OLED is great for dedicated film viewing, by a good margin (short of me setting up the 16mm Xenon.)